The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-03
THE VETOED PENSION BILL.
A Clear. Statement of the Merits of the Meas
ure that President Cleveland Killed.

a Clear Statement of the Merits of the Meas
ure that President Cleveland Killed.
Speech of Governor OgIesby at Springfield.
Mr.. Cleveland has done pretty well in some
respects. L was sorry he vetoed so many pen
sion bills he did, and if l had been Grover 1
would not have vetoed that last pension BILL
which veto met with considerable favor 1 do
not, you all know, members of this Legis-
lature know believe much in vetoes anyhow. I
will always get around one if l conscientously
can. Whom that body composed of the Senate
and House of Representatives, in Congress
sembled, passes bill in its best judgment calcu
lated for the welfare of the people, knowing the
means in the Treasury. knowing all the sources
of revenue, and knowing the worthy merits of
the soldiers OF the Union cause, Iapplause | say
under these circumstances Mr.. Cleveland ought
to have been slow about that veto. After the
over passed laws early-and Senator
Sherman voted for every one of them before
either Cullom or went to Congress-providing
that whore there was dependent father o.
mother upon boy whose life lost
in the war, that that dependent father
mother. dependent sister brother.
should receive the pension that the dead
disabled soldier, if living, would have received.
Now. after waiting a quarter Of century, be-
cause fathers and mothers have grown depend
ent now, who were not dependent when that
legislation went into effect; because now they
are old and dependent, and lost boy in the
war, on whose account they. did not ask you nor
me the national treasury for dollar in the
shape of pension; because they could get along
when that boy was alive or when disabled: be-
cause the considerate father and mother able to
the government to pay them for the loss of that
boy, because they were not at that time depend
ent on him-is there any good reason, now that
the father and mother are older, why they should
be deprived of that pension? Is there any reason
why Congress should not now give to these old
parents the pension which they might have been
drawing this last quarter of century but not
one dollar of which they have drawn2 That
law was passed to give the dependent father and
mother a pension for the loss of son. not be-
cause they then dependent him, bnt
dependent.
feeling people anywhere say that any law like
that be far from wrong2 Suppose it did
take fifteen twenty millions out of the treas
ury-lst it go that way If that boy had been
wounded and lived these twenty five years. he
would have been drawing an annual pension at
the time; but since ne drawing no pension
at all, is it not reasonable that the father and
mother should draw that pension for his services
for the remainder of their lives? Where a man
is dependent wholly upon his personal, manual
and physica labor for support, who SOL
der. and is not able now, through no bad habit
of his own (the law had the very words almost
in it), and is in a decrepit or disabled state of
bodily health, would it be very wrong to give
such a a pension? That is the bill that the
President vetoed, and do not think he ought to
have done It.